Apparently Skynet goes live July 8th 2015, though in this timeline it's an evolution of flash trading algorithms rather than a DoD project. In a panic they shut down the exchange.....
It's not Germany's fault that Greece didn't live within their means.
In a weird way it actually kind of is. The exporting countries in the Euro are taking advantage of the common currency arrangement. It basically holds down the value of their own currency and transfers wealth from the non-exporting countries to the exporting ones. You can't have an effective monetary union without a matching fiscal union and that's exactly what they're trying with pretty predictable consequences. Of course the Greeks sped up the process with some fairly reckless spending but that's more the icing than the cake.
I didn't hear a science problem anywhere in your rebuttal. Sure, it would be a huge, expensive, long term project, but there is no science reason it can't be done. For water we could easily drop comets on it till we achieve the appropriate amount of water. Natural cyanobacteria would indeed take a long time but it does work, genetically engineered ones could do it a lot faster. FYI, we can filter carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere, it's just not cost effective to do that rather than just reducing emissions.
Ok, so it's interesting and possibly feasible but why would we want to? Unless they're going to be supervising a terraforming project on Venus I don't see much value in putting a colony there.
whatever other countries do, your own can always refuse to initiate armed conflict.
Sure, but sometimes that is worse. If the Allies had intervened earlier then the Nazis would have never gotten rolling in the first place and the death toll for WWII would have been several orders of magnitude smaller.
The world would be a lot better with a reduced number of unnecessary armed conflicts, even if you can't avoid them entirely.
In some cases yes, in other cases we should be fighting and aren't. The reason being that some armed conflicts are necessary. I'm not pro-war, I'm just saying that we can't hide our heads in the sand and hope the bad people go away.
First, the logistical complexity thing is bullshit. I'm not listening to that anymore.
Well the navy doesn't agree:
"Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible."
- ADM Hyman Rickover, USN
The Army doesn't agree:
"Forget logistics, you lose."
- Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm
The Marines don't agree:
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
The Air Force doesn't agree:
“Be nice to your mother but love your logisticians...” -- Gen Charles A. Horner, USAF
Famous military experts don't agree:
"There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war."
- Carl von Clausevitz
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics"
- Sun Tzu
"My logisticians are a humorless lot... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
- Alexander
“You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” – General Dwight D. Eisenhower
And indifferent to that, the F35 is objectively inferior to 12 different specialized planes.
Of course it is, any plane not special built for it's role is going to be less effective for that role. The question is how much specialization do you need vs. the increased logistics complexity. The F-35 tries to wear too many hats, that's for certain, but I would argue we really only needed one more airframe. The F-22 for air superiority, what the F-35 should have been for air interdiction and multi-role use, and a heavy close air support VTOL. The worst design compromises would have been avoided and it we'd have a much better product without too much extra logistics complexity.
If a war were to break up, is Dogfighting really "the" efficient way to take care of fighter? With all new modern weaponry (AAM, SAM, laser etc.) I'm not completely sure if this feature is still relevant in modern time.
So far there haven't been any game changing technologies that eliminate the need for aircraft. Eventually high powered lasers, new sensors and sophisticated tracking systems might make planes obsolete, in the meantime they're still pretty critical. If you have planes flying around trying to kill each other it's inevitable that they're going to end up close at some point, in which case you're going to want A) a gun and B) a way not to get hit by the other guy's gun.
Earth?
The next time we fight someone who isn't a total pushover, yeah there will be some dogfighting. As long as we keep kicking over the anthills of third world dictators, no, not so much.
What you want is not one plane but maybe a dozen different types that all do different things.
Well, it's a trade off. More types means more complicated logistics and that's bad. You want as few types as you can get away with while still having enough types that they do the job well.
The most important roles for separate fighter designs:
Air Superiority (shooting down other planes)
Air Interdiction (precision strikes against ground targets, often in the face of air defenses)
Close Air Support (direct support of ground troops)
There are a number of specialty roles like aerial recon, suppression of air defenses, forward air control and such.
The air superiority role really needs something purpose built like the F-22 as it has a unique set of requirements and compromising them really reduces it's effectiveness.
The air interdiction role can usually handle being a multi-role aircraft as long as you don't go crazy with it like they did with the F-35. The main purpose is as a fighter/bomber but they can be modded to air defense suppression, recon and a variety of other specialty tasks.
The close air support role needs to be purpose built due to the need for heavy firepower, high armor and usually VTOL capability.
The AC130 is a fun platform but not a replacement for the A10. The Air Force hates the close air support role with a passion but refuses to let the Army take it due to budgetary squabbles.
I'm sure IT would be happy to allow and support R if management would commit to providing training, staff time for support and budget to handle the related costs. That won't happen though so basically you're trying to make your job easier at the cost of making their job harder.
Marriage can only take place between consenting individuals. Children can't consent, so they can't get married. In some cases parents are allowed to consent for their children, so there might be some space to argue about whether arranged marriages of pre-adults are kosher. Personally I'm a bit skeptical, but that's a matter for public debate.
It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.
Perhaps, but that's not what is happening in this case. The equal protection clause was specifically designed for cases like this where a minority group is given less rights than everyone else.
All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.
So of course there will be a small factory where humans apply the "Made by a Human" sticker to products that were made by robots but since humans "completed" the process it counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently Skynet goes live July 8th 2015, though in this timeline it's an evolution of flash trading algorithms rather than a DoD project. In a panic they shut down the exchange.....
I'm pretty sure that was a comment on morals rather than skill difficulty.
It's not Germany's fault that Greece didn't live within their means.
In a weird way it actually kind of is. The exporting countries in the Euro are taking advantage of the common currency arrangement. It basically holds down the value of their own currency and transfers wealth from the non-exporting countries to the exporting ones. You can't have an effective monetary union without a matching fiscal union and that's exactly what they're trying with pretty predictable consequences. Of course the Greeks sped up the process with some fairly reckless spending but that's more the icing than the cake.
I didn't hear a science problem anywhere in your rebuttal. Sure, it would be a huge, expensive, long term project, but there is no science reason it can't be done. For water we could easily drop comets on it till we achieve the appropriate amount of water. Natural cyanobacteria would indeed take a long time but it does work, genetically engineered ones could do it a lot faster. FYI, we can filter carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere, it's just not cost effective to do that rather than just reducing emissions.
Ok, so it's interesting and possibly feasible but why would we want to? Unless they're going to be supervising a terraforming project on Venus I don't see much value in putting a colony there.
Fixing that is merely a matter of engineering and resources, we already have the science.
Actually they're not facts, they're theories backed by very strong evidence. A small distinction but an important one.
That's a good point.
whatever other countries do, your own can always refuse to initiate armed conflict.
Sure, but sometimes that is worse. If the Allies had intervened earlier then the Nazis would have never gotten rolling in the first place and the death toll for WWII would have been several orders of magnitude smaller.
The world would be a lot better with a reduced number of unnecessary armed conflicts, even if you can't avoid them entirely.
In some cases yes, in other cases we should be fighting and aren't. The reason being that some armed conflicts are necessary. I'm not pro-war, I'm just saying that we can't hide our heads in the sand and hope the bad people go away.
Hmm, I suppose it depends on how heavy you want the armor. Certainly you can't go as heavy as the A10. I'd have to defer to an expert on that one.
First, the logistical complexity thing is bullshit. I'm not listening to that anymore.
Well the navy doesn't agree:
... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
- Alexander
"Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible." - ADM Hyman Rickover, USN
The Army doesn't agree:
"Forget logistics, you lose." - Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm
The Marines don't agree:
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
The Air Force doesn't agree:
“Be nice to your mother but love your logisticians...” -- Gen Charles A. Horner, USAF
Famous military experts don't agree:
"There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war." - Carl von Clausevitz
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics" - Sun Tzu
"My logisticians are a humorless lot
“You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” – General Dwight D. Eisenhower
And indifferent to that, the F35 is objectively inferior to 12 different specialized planes.
Of course it is, any plane not special built for it's role is going to be less effective for that role. The question is how much specialization do you need vs. the increased logistics complexity. The F-35 tries to wear too many hats, that's for certain, but I would argue we really only needed one more airframe. The F-22 for air superiority, what the F-35 should have been for air interdiction and multi-role use, and a heavy close air support VTOL. The worst design compromises would have been avoided and it we'd have a much better product without too much extra logistics complexity.
If a war were to break up, is Dogfighting really "the" efficient way to take care of fighter? With all new modern weaponry (AAM, SAM, laser etc.) I'm not completely sure if this feature is still relevant in modern time.
So far there haven't been any game changing technologies that eliminate the need for aircraft. Eventually high powered lasers, new sensors and sophisticated tracking systems might make planes obsolete, in the meantime they're still pretty critical. If you have planes flying around trying to kill each other it's inevitable that they're going to end up close at some point, in which case you're going to want A) a gun and B) a way not to get hit by the other guy's gun.
Imagine, if you can, a world without war, it's easy if you try.
I can also imagine purple unicorns that vomit rainbows. The fact that I have a good imagination doesn't change reality.
Earth?
The next time we fight someone who isn't a total pushover, yeah there will be some dogfighting. As long as we keep kicking over the anthills of third world dictators, no, not so much.
What you want is not one plane but maybe a dozen different types that all do different things.
Well, it's a trade off. More types means more complicated logistics and that's bad. You want as few types as you can get away with while still having enough types that they do the job well.
The most important roles for separate fighter designs:
Air Superiority (shooting down other planes)
Air Interdiction (precision strikes against ground targets, often in the face of air defenses)
Close Air Support (direct support of ground troops)
There are a number of specialty roles like aerial recon, suppression of air defenses, forward air control and such.
The air superiority role really needs something purpose built like the F-22 as it has a unique set of requirements and compromising them really reduces it's effectiveness.
The air interdiction role can usually handle being a multi-role aircraft as long as you don't go crazy with it like they did with the F-35. The main purpose is as a fighter/bomber but they can be modded to air defense suppression, recon and a variety of other specialty tasks.
The close air support role needs to be purpose built due to the need for heavy firepower, high armor and usually VTOL capability.
The AC130 is a fun platform but not a replacement for the A10. The Air Force hates the close air support role with a passion but refuses to let the Army take it due to budgetary squabbles.
If resources were offered and refused then either they didn't believe you or you have the wrong IT staff.
I'm sure IT would be happy to allow and support R if management would commit to providing training, staff time for support and budget to handle the related costs. That won't happen though so basically you're trying to make your job easier at the cost of making their job harder.
So are you in for child brides too?
Marriage can only take place between consenting individuals. Children can't consent, so they can't get married. In some cases parents are allowed to consent for their children, so there might be some space to argue about whether arranged marriages of pre-adults are kosher. Personally I'm a bit skeptical, but that's a matter for public debate.
It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.
Perhaps, but that's not what is happening in this case. The equal protection clause was specifically designed for cases like this where a minority group is given less rights than everyone else.
So, the government's role in marriage goes beyond merely enforcing contracts.
Not in any way that makes a difference, the rest is just details of various bureaucracies most of which shouldn't be involved in the first place.
All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.
Hardly activism to support the equal protection clause.
So of course there will be a small factory where humans apply the "Made by a Human" sticker to products that were made by robots but since humans "completed" the process it counts.